Those of you who are pleased with these seemingly exciting new weapons to use in the fight to defeat Romney are losing perspective. You are not thinking about how you look to the people you need to convince. Here’s a clue: You look ugly.

Professor, I know I'm not near the first person to bring this up, but could you please explain why the racist attacks against Ms. Dash don't make liberalism look "ugly" and cause you to lean towards the other side, the same way that you said that the Rush flap did last week? Is there some sort of difference that I'm missing?

Yes, she should support the man who has put more people on food stamps than any other president. She should support the party that has created a world where 30% of black men go to prison, 73% of black children born out of wedlock, the government builds ghettos (called section 8 housing) for the poor and blacks to live in, and then tell you they're here to help.

Liberals try playing the Jewish Bolshevik argument, refined by the Stalinists and later the Democrat Left - that one must be true to what "Leaders" (normally not elected but self-annointed)say about their only correct choices. What they, given they have been wisely led and educated by the self-annointed Head Negroes, Party officials, progressive Jews orchestrating academia curriculums - must "correctly" think and act on as proletariat, as blacks, etc. are - otherwise they are traitors to their class, race, gender, etc.

At least Stacy won't be hauled out and shot on orders of the Soviet Committee that deemed her counter revolutionary and a traitor to her proper identity and proper expression of views in society.

It's not really "liberal fascism"...as fascism was largely a reaction against the Red Terror. (Though the Nazis were deeply inspired by the State Terror structure, need to dispense with trials in the name of social justice, and the Gulag Camps the Russian and Jewish Bolsheviks created.)It is communist and pomo communist progressivism at it's heart.

I try to stay away from Twitchy, it finds the worst of people. I really don't like reading tweets of people urinating on lawn signs. I take extra care that I'm never rude to a campaign volunteer, canvassing or phone banking.

I know that everyone wants to pile on Althouse for this, but I'm honestly interested in hearing her justification for the apparent inconsistency. I understand why it looks bad, but I'd like to hear her explanation as to why it make sense to her (assuming that she has one, which maybe she doesn't, since she's failed to respond to so many people bringing it up).

Have a little sympathy for Althouse. She lives in a very liberal town, she voices moderate opinions, and she's villified all the time.

It's really brave to be a conservative voice, when you are surrounded by liberals. Because they will hate you. They will attack you, attack your family, attack your job, and in general will try as hard as they can to silence you.

In some cases, they will keep you from finding employment or seek to hurt you financially.

Free speech used to be a liberal ideal. It hasn't been for a long time. I applaud Romney supporters who speak out, but understand that it will cost you.

I believe a lot of this is because Republicans are demonized in the mainstream media for being racist. If you vote for Romney, you're a racist. Or you hate women. Or you hate the poor.

I believe this is why a lot of Romney's support is underground. We want to vote for Romney, and we want to avoid all the racial attacks that the left piles on us. Defending ourselves from false allegations is boring and stupid and we would just as soon avoid the whole irrational conversation.

She isn't telling us. Her position certainly looks like a double standard, where expressions of racism on one side are OK.

I have no idea how her position can be morally consistent. I'm sure there is some nuance in there that explains it, just like there is nuance in finding Abortions are legally guaranteed in the constitution, AA isn't a violation of the equal protection under the laws clause, the finding that illegals are entitled to taxpayers services by the 9th circuit court of appeals, etc.

If there was ever a group of intolerant, lock-step minded and racist people it is the group that lays claim to being the 'most' tolerant, 'most' free-thinking and 'least' racist: The Democrat Party/Leftists.

"Professor, I know I'm not near the first person to bring this up, but could you please explain why the racist attacks against Ms. Dash don't make liberalism look "ugly" and cause you to lean towards the other side, the same way that you said that the Rush flap did last week? Is there some sort of difference that I'm missing?"

You're missing that this post is implicitly calling it ugly.

Of course, it's not a big deal because it's just some Twitter thing somebody put up.

"Whites have the privilege in America of choosing their own political philosophy. Blacks, not as much. AKA "white privilege."

Like MayBee said: Same with women.

Though it's more a case of they *try* and try really hard to make it a "woman" thing to want government daddies and state husbands and who to vote for because your "lady parts depend on it" and half of us roll our eyes and think about how stupid they are to try it.

It's not so easy, I think, when you're black. You don't have to stand up to half of "your" group being pushy and dictatorial, you've got to stand up to 80% or 90% in addition to all those outside of your group that are going to go all "concern troll" over your self-hatred.

The quote used for the subject title has it pretty good... it's whatever pressure to conform times three. You're supposed to want THIS three times over. What's wrong with you?

Maybe there is a whole lot of "white privilege" involved but it's not actually systemic... that sort of built-in favor that we can't do anything about but are supposed to feel guilty over... this is active.

There is something that can be done about it. People who are compelled to keep on trying to force people into their version of a proper minority can just stop.

There is something that can be done about it. People who are compelled to keep on trying to force people into their version of a proper minority can just stop.

Very true.I don't get why minority groups (and women) let themselves get boxed into this, either. What was the fighting to be seen as individuals all about, if we (or they) invite others to see us as having one group-approved opinion?

Perhaps she agrees that involuntary exploitation (e.g. redistributive change) is a myopic and terminal vision of progress.

Perhaps she agrees with conservatives, that there should be a safety net. That it should serve to promote the general Welfare. That individual welfare should be replaced with rehabilitation, which is short-term, focused, and accountable. That entitlements are contributory, which ensures a vested interest to preserve their integrity and viability.

Perhaps she knows that denigration of individual dignity, progressive involuntary exploitation, and devaluation of human life engender progressive (i.e. cultural) corruption. That a selective rule of law engenders the same outcome.

Perhaps she appreciates the values enshrined by classical liberalism and understands the necessity for temperance promoted by Judeo-Christian principles and similar.

The only thing she likely doesn't know, and cannot possibly know with any certainty, is if Romney will hold true to his principles and stated positions. However, she does know that the most likely outcome will follow from a process which minimizes the differential between a starting and ending position.

Take a Constitutional principle guaranteeing freedom of religion and conscience... note that contraceptives aren't covered by organizations who oppose them on 1st Ammendment grounds. Use this to insist that your college wants people to die if their medical condition requires something that is incidentally also a contraceptive, when this is a lie and treatments that aren't contraceptive in intent are covered.

And then, when the truth can't be denied the whole war on women whine fest has a hissy fit because someone DARES to make that determination and provides the contraceptive... this turns medical insurance companies wanting to determine if you are ILL into monsters who want to... determine if you are ILL. In other words, woman hating man-things who demand to know your reproductive condition.

Is there any other possible condition where you don't have to actually be diagnosed as sick to get your perscription? Any?

So getting diagnosed with "she is sick and needs oral contraceptives to treat her illness" is different how? It's not.

But whatever... vote like your lady parts depend on it. Just don't think about the Anti-1st Ammendment Fluke.

If pointing out Jews as bearing heavy responsibility for historical things like the Red Terror and PC speech and Wall Street's Meltdown is bigoted...

Then any condemnation of Muslims as a historical bad player in terrorism, suppression of rights must therefore be cast as bigoted as well.

That's actually right. It's dangerous to lump individuals into large groups and say "X is like Y." You're talking about millions of people you've never met and you don't know. It's by definition idiotic.

Of course we do this all the time. It's pure laziness, a shutting off of our brain. You know you haven't met all those Jews, C4, and some part of your brain has to be warning you about the dangers of spouting off while in ignorance about the people you're talking about.

Of course there is such a thing as culture and ideology. And we can criticize cultures, and ideology, and thus criticize the people who subscribe to them. But we have to remind ourselves, always, about free will. And also about the limits of our own knowledge.

My first girlfriend was Jewish. She was awesome. I would sometimes have an irrational prejudice that the next Jew I ran into was going to be smart, funny, and cool as hell. It's a sloppy and ridiculous way to think about people. I was always cognizant that Jews are different than me. But of course everybody is different from me, as all individuals are unique.

Also, there's the matter of obsession. I obsess about abortion, Crack obsesses about cults, you obsess about the Jews. Obsession is a form of madness, but it's also obsessive people who change the world.

Althouse blogs every frickin' day! That's an example of a marvelous obsession, like an artist who's hard at work crafting a masterpiece. Obsession can be positive or negative. I believe obsession is critical to any success. But you want to be careful combining obsession with anger or a mean spirit. And I'm talking about myself as much as you.